<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Leg Glance
(Login legglance)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 12:11 PM 


"It is interesting to note that Bairstow, Rashid and Willey have not batted in a game since 14 May; i.e. 15 days ago."

And they're doing well at the moment.( hope this doesn't jinx them)

Maybe the ECB's 'resting' policy is the way forward. happy.gif

 
 
Guest
(Login BrickyardBoy)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 12:18 PM 

Exactly. If the top order batted less often they might do better.

Keep them hungry!

 
 
Guest
(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 12:31 PM 

Bairstow and Willey in lower order fight back for England with battling bulldog spirit.

Could be a hint of deja vu to the early 1980's when their Dads used to do likewise

 
 
Seadog73
(Login Seadog73)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 1:03 PM 

Roland-Jones enjoying himself on debut - very good cricketer.

 
 
54off24
(Login 54off24)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 1:09 PM 

Great 50 for JB, fantastic considering the position when he came in.

Last game he'll play though - no chance of a place in Chumps Trophy

 
 
Seadog73
(Login Seadog73)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 1:18 PM 

If Roy fails against Bangladesh I suspect Jonny will come in.

 
 
WR_Metcalfe
(Login WR_Metcalfe)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 1:31 PM 

Reckon we can double the score in the last 20 overs?

 
 
Guest
(Login ExiledinNotts)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 1:40 PM 

Good cameo role there from Roland-Jones. South Africa's fielding was much better today. Rabada is a great bowler.

 
 
Loiner
(Login TheLoiner)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 4:32 PM 

Willey has dropped below Ball in the pecking order now

 
 
Geoff B
(Login Coastalview)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 4:33 PM 

England well beaten, should be a bit of a wake up call.

At some stage, Thursday, Roy has to deliver or he needs to go.

England should have re-calibrated and changed their approach once they had lost 3 wickets not 6.

Hales, Buttler and Rashid at fault.

If they say they were just playing to orders it shows how brainless the 3 of them are.

 
 
Leg Glance
(Login legglance)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 4:59 PM 


"If they say they were just playing to orders it shows how brainless the 3 of them are."

I called it exactly that at 20-6 CV but feel sure they would be playing to orders.

The lack of a Plan B when it's going like that points to a brainless heirarchy but, as you say, they need to be strong enough to think for themselves regardless of the (crass) instructions.

 
 
Idle man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 9:53 PM 

I know I tend to be a bit of a traditionalist on cricket matters. I also know that the white ball game has moved on, but if there's one principle which should have survived it's surely 'use your overs '.

I can't stand watching stupid cricket, and I don't mean issues like last year's non-declaration at OT, where at least I could see what the thinking might be. Here I couldn't imagine what the thinking was. Coming out of the blocks running is one thing, but you have to respond to conditions and context. The loss of early wickets should change your approach. I'd have hung my head in shame to give my wicket away as some of them did. Even in the better second half of the innings, there were stupidities. Willey and Ball both got out attacking when there were better batsmen building innings at the other end. A club 2nd XI tailender would know what their job was in those circumstances. And JB batted beautifully, but his dismissal was absurd with 20 overs left to bat.

Awful. And with the ball Yorkshire's eighth best seamer looked what he is.

 
 
Dwight_Schrute
(Login Dwight_Schrute)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 10:29 PM 

Becoming a relentless attack now on David Willey now. I hope he doesn't read the forum.

 
 
Leg Glance
(Login legglance)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 29 2017, 10:58 PM 

Hopefully he's honing his skills, there's plenty of scope.

He's been a big disappointment so far so, rightly in my opinion, he's getting adverse comment because he just does not seem to be fulfilling the promise.

Always difficult for a player who does not meet expectations, especially if it transpires they were set too high, which, admittedly,might well not be his fault.

 
 
Guest
(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 30 2017, 8:35 AM 

I have some sympathy for Willey.

First it shows the gulf between div 1 and div 2 as we have seen with Duckett and others recently.

Second he suffers from his versatility and therefore doesn't have a clear role in the team but I have seen him bowl some great opening spells with a new ball.

Third his injuries have upset his rhythm and not being selected when fit has hindered him too. He strikes me as someone who gets better by playing regularly.

To blame him or Bairstow for brainless batting judged on the one ball they got out to, overlooks the fundamental weakness of the previous 6 who went before them blazing away without a care in the world. Bairstow and Willey restored some respectability and sadly both were out when they tried to push on having rebuilt.

Roy cannot survive on last years form alone. Morgan strikes me stubborn but I hope he does not also strike me as stupid too with his blindness to the talent not in his preferred starting line up.


 
 
Idle_man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 30 2017, 8:50 AM 

That's a fair defence of Willey, but he does represent a problem, because he appeared such a major signing. For all the talk of stepping into Ryan' shoes, I suspect for us he was primarily a signing focused on improving one day results. On the other hand he clearly hoped to become a better first-class cricketer and push for a test place. For whatever reasons he's not made progress and become a difficult player to select for the Championship.

 
 
Dewsburian
(Login Dewsburian)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 30 2017, 8:52 AM 

If I were Willey, I wouldn't worry too much. There was a time when this forum actually debated whether Adil Rashid and Tim Bresnan would ever be good enough to play county cricket. I can remember calls, not so long ago, to drop Gary Ballance. And wasn't someone arguing that Leaning should be released if he didn't have a good year?
There was probably some rational basis to all of these discussions. Less explicable is the bizarre debate about Bairstow and the England ODI team. Yesterday Alec Stewart commented that "it's as though he's playing on a different surface against a different bowling attack," which is almost a textbook definition of the genuinely "class" batsman (it's certainly what my dad used to say about Len Hutton, which is probably the same thing). The selectors' problem seems to be that they have previously made changes on the eve of competitions and have been slated for the poor outcome. I know cricketers don't like to leave their seats when a batsman is going well, but surely this is taking superstition to a new level. The problem in those earlier cases was actually that the team was performing poorly and an untested "solution" was applied. If the England selectors really have come up with a better formula than "pick the best team", I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.

A brief coda on the Willey situation: I don't think the argument when he was signed was about replacing Ryan Sidebottom. Surely all the emphasis was on what he could bring in the one-day games. He has played only sporadically in the CC, which is never entirely fair to anyone, but my impression is that he has often been trying too hard (that certainly looked to be the case on debut). I think we may also have been fooled by his age to think he is more experienced than is really the case. He's had a lot of injuries in his career and Northants weren't always involved in the most demanding cricket.


    
This message has been edited by Dewsburian on May 30, 2017 9:26 AM


 
 

Dave Morton
(Login DaveMorton)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 30 2017, 9:26 AM 

I've been pondering this matter of England's balance.

They seem to pick two 'proper' batsmen in the top 6 (Root and Stokes), along with four one-day specialists, plus another proper player, Moin Ali, to come.

Yesterday, Bairstow replaced Stokes but Ali was absent, so we were down to two batsmen who might be expected to play in a Test match top order.

Is this the thinking...?

Roy and/or Hales, plus one of Morgan or Buttler come off big, and we're quids in, big score, 320+, which even our bowlers have a chance of defending. If they ALL come off, even bigger.

If they all fail, as on Monday, then we lose. BUT (and this is the point) we used to lose anyway, doing it the traditional way, with a Cook-style opener, building a score, wickets in hand for a final assault. We used to score 280, or so, which we couldn't defend, so we lost nearly every time.

Personally, I think you have to select some flexibility. If it's green, as Lord's was said to be, and you're playing South Africa's attack - surely you need something more solid at the top. Jennings, for example, rather than Cook these days. And perhaps there should be a Bell or a younger equivalent available to bat in the middle. Moin could be promoted to do that job, also.

And, whatever the conditions, whoever the opposition, Bairstow should be in there. And if there, he might as well keep wicket.

 
 
Dewsburian
(Login Dewsburian)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 30 2017, 9:46 AM 

It's particularly odd that almost all other sport now talks in terms of squads and the importance of having all members of the squad able to contribute, but the England cricket team seems obsessed with a fixed team (and particularly the top order) and seems to feel it would be disruptive to change even one element. Added to that, Morgan's comments about the Lord's wicket were very strange: is he a bit more fragile than he seems?

 
 
Martin
(Login Martinh00)

Re: England v SA 50 overs.

May 30 2017, 10:11 AM 

Some thing else I've often felt with Morgan is that he is very much a batsman's captain. He has no qualms about leaving out bowlers (or all rounders) in a dead rubber game even though all - according to him - were fit to play. Willey is down the pecking order and was effectively dropped for the first two games and only came in for this game as a last resort. No qualms about dropping him.

Where batsmen are concerned it is quite a different story. Their positions appear sacrosanct. He was still talking Roy up after this game. He also refuses to blame the batsmen for being 20/6 which is crazy!


 
 
 
< Previous Page 12 3 4 5 6 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
All IP addresses are recorded. We reserve the right to remove personal attacks, sexist, racist, homophobic, defamatory or abusive comments, comments likely to incite religious hatred, those disposed to wind others up, and unapproved advertising.

Email us: Whiterosecricket@hotmail.co.uk